The earth is only 6000 years old (II)

[itinerant1]

Not so - the doctrine of creation has been a constant belief and teaching of the Church until very recently. Did God deceive us in the past? Is the Cardinal condemning St Augustine? In the scope of time - the belief in a younger earth has been what - 5-6000 years? Old earth what - say 200 years? Something is amiss here.

The argument is bogus.

That is exactly how the Sophists argue. By a sleight of hand you changed the issue from “creationism” to “creation”.

The church has defined dogma on creation. Those doctrine do not endorse creationists’ assertions about the age of the world.

Any of St. Augustine’s texts that imply an age for the Earth are not doctrines of the Church. They are Augustine’s personal opinions and do not rise to the level of dogma or teachings that are *de fide.

I agree that, *“Something is amiss here” – it is your sophistic arguments. The logical fallacies are glaring and undeniable.

 

[itinerant1]

Sure. That date is based on the date of Creation. Look it up if you don’t believe me.

God bless,
Ed

Your fallacy is to believe that an Israeli calendar proves the issue. Apparently, you do not know what kinds of things constitute evidence or proof.

BTW, only a small percentage of Jews are “creationists.”

 

[itinerant1]

Stephen Jay Gould, a minor deity in the pantheon of evolutionists. He doesn’t believe God did anything and further said that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently.

Father Coyne exemplifies this type of thinking which Cardinal Schoenborn refers to on page 169 of Chance or Purpose?

“When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.”

Footnote: “For example, Fr. George V. Coyne, S.J., in Der Spiegel, no. 52, December 22, 2000.”

God bless,
Ed

Your post is completely irrelevant and side-tracking. We are not discussing atheism vs. theism, or Darwinian ideology. The issue with evolution, gradualness and PE, pertained to Darwinian science. The other issue was the age of the earth. Your post responds to neither.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t see how this responds to the problematic position that asserts the universe is young but that God created it to appear as if it had been around for 13-15 billion years.

God is a God of reason and his universe is intelligible. But if the universe is only 6, 000 years old yet scientifically dates to be 13 - 15 billion years old then we have a radical disconnect with knowledge and reality. Human reason can no longer be trusted to investigate and study creation. Nor can humans put trust in a Creator who would arbitrarily deceive humans in this manner.

There is a profound cognitive dissonance in the idea that God recently created (6 - 10, 000 years ago) the universe in an advanced stage. This position is merely a concession by some “creationists” to scientific facts while stubbornly holding onto their fundamentalism and flawed biblical literalism.

Your response indicates either you misunderstood the original issue, or that you are a
young-earth-made-to-look-old creationist. Which is it say you?

How about thinking through the last paragraph of post 24 which you quoted?
“Do the tools of created humanity surpass God? Perhaps we need to reevaluate the tools in order to seek knowledge which is ultimately beyond us.” Maybe it should have read “tools or methods used to measure the age of the earth”?

Looking at the various posts describing tools, methods, etc., from both sides of the earth age issue, and then looking at the various posts which contradicted others, in my humble opinion, none of the arguments surpassed God. Do you agree? Or does one of the sciences surpass God? Who or what do people want to blame for the dispute? I have heard the idea of a trickster from so many posters that I suspect it is a virus.

You commented that “Human reason can no longer be trusted to investigate and study creation.” Not sure where that came from; but, it does affirm that the problem is not God’s. So why do people want to call God a trickster? Where is the sense of that?

As for misunderstanding the original issue – my original issue is that it is not nice for anyone to consider or even imply that God might be a trickster especially when that name is not deserved.

As for fundamentalism and flawed biblical literalism – Is that the real target?
How do you treat those who believe that the doctrine is that God created the earth but did not hand us His literal blueprint? How do you treat these same people when they say that they believe in the reality of two sole parents of the human species in spite of some scientists’ ideas? When it comes to evaluating evidence, is biblical literalism the issue or is the issue actual Catholic doctrine? Or is the issue neither?

As for the idea of God creating the universe in an advanced stage – that may or may not turn out to be an interesting discussion.

Your question: “Which is it say you?” My answer: I’m a free spirit. Deal with it.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for new knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[edwest2]

To those who think skepticism about science somehow “harms” the faith:

I have done street witnessing. The person listening to me needs to know who Jesus Christ is and what He did for them and all mankind. In my decades of talking to people without faith, a little faith and a lot of faith, I have never encountered anyone who asked me:

“But does your Church believe in evolution, or, Does your Church believe in the correct age of the Earth?” Never.

Except here.

All I ever got, and still get, is the following:

“Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.” Of course, the implication is if I could produce God right in front of this guy, God would have to jump through a few hoops. Perhaps perform a miracle or two.

So for those presenting the provisional but otherwise ultra-orthodox belief that the earth is X number of years old – I’m skeptical. And I don’t think the average person who already doesn’t believe in some invisible man in the sky will be persuaded by a few incentives like, “Well, you know, we believe in evolution and we are very sure the earth is billions of years old.” Uh, uh. The rationalist mindset is not likely to accept that some wafer is the body of some invisible god either.

There is significant evidence that distance and redshift are not accurate.

God bless,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

That is exactly how the Sophists argue. By a sleight of hand you changed the issue from “creationism” to “creation”.

The church has defined dogma on creation. Those doctrine do not endorse creationists’ assertions about the age of the world.

Any of St. Augustine’s texts that imply an age for the Earth are not doctrines of the Church. They are Augustine’s personal opinions and do not rise to the level of dogma or teachings that are *de fide.

I agree that, *“Something is amiss here” – it is your sophistic arguments. The logical fallacies are glaring and undeniable.

I do not argue biblical literalism as others do. I argue that we interpret Scripture as the Church teaches. Don’t confuse me with others.

I post over and over again what the Church has taught and believed continuously. This is the illumination that comes from Revelation and protected by the Holy Spirit. Don’t try to put me outside the Church.

 

[itinerant1]

How about thinking through the last paragraph of post 24 which you quoted?
“Do the tools of created humanity surpass God? Perhaps we need to reevaluate the tools in order to seek knowledge which is ultimately beyond us.” Maybe it should have read “tools or methods used to measure the age of the earth”?

Looking at the various posts describing tools, methods, etc., from both sides of the issue, and then looking at the various posts which contradicted others, in my humble opinion, none of the arguments surpassed God. Do you agree? Or does one of the sciences surpass God? Who or what do people want to blame for the dispute? I have heard the idea of a trickster from so many posters that I suspect it is a virus.

You commented that “Human reason can no longer be trusted to investigate and study creation.” Not sure where that came from; but, it does affirm that the problem is not God’s. So why do people want to call God a trickster? Where is the sense of that?

As for misunderstanding the original issue – my original issue is that it is not nice for anyone to consider or even imply that God might be a trickster especially when that name is not deserved.

As for fundamentalism and flawed biblical literalism – Is that the real target?
How do you treat those who believe that the doctrine is that God created the earth but did not hand us His literal blueprint? How do you treat these same people when they say that they believe in the reality of two sole parents of the human species in spite of some scientists’ ideas? When it comes to evaluating evidence, is biblical literalism the issue or is the issue actual Catholic doctrine?

As for the idea of God creating the universe in an advanced stage – that may or may not turn out to be an interesting discussion.

Your question: “Which is it say you?” My answer: I’m a free spirit. Deal with it.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for new knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

I was hoping you had a truly thought-out view on the issue.

For me, the right answer and the only answer is obvious. God did not create the universe in an advanced state.

Anything else, denigrates the infinite power and wisdom of God.

 

[buffalo]

I was hoping you had a truly thought-out view on the issue.

For me, the right answer and the only answer is obvious. God did not create the universe in an advanced state.

Anything else, denigrates the infinite power and wisdom of God.

Did you by any chance read the St Augustine link I provided? Is St Augustine denigrating God?

 

[larkin31]

Stephen Jay Gould, a minor deity in the pantheon of evolutionists. He doesn’t believe God did anything and further said that if evolution could be rewound, things would have turned out differently.

Father Coyne exemplifies this type of thinking which Cardinal Schoenborn refers to on page 169 of Chance or Purpose?

“When an astronomer, who is also a priest and theologian, even has the presumption to say that God himself could not know for certain that man would be the product of evolution, then nonsense has taken over completely.”

To say that another time through the history of the planet might produce a different sort of biosphere is no comment on God either way. God, of course, even in trial #2, could produce a different sort of chosen creature(s) and inspire a different sort of sacred text (or none at all). You’re not actually going to say that God would have to make humans again, right? It would be up to him, right?

 

[rossum]

Thank you for the detailed response.

After reading this, IMO it looks like the DNA (all living creatures’ DNA?) contains the ability to make certain limited modifications to itself, but then cannot pass any “knowledge” gained (in terms of particular pathogens) to its offspring. But the offspring would have the same ability for modifications (unless a disadvantageous mutation occurred in the DNA which describes the development of the immune system).

Yes, with the proviso that rarely the mutation will improve the immune system. Sharks and Lampreys both have simpler versions of what eventually became our system.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

I was hoping you had a truly thought-out view on the issue.

In other words, in my humble opinion, it does not make any difference which side of the earth age issue one is on – it is not necessary to attribute “tricks” to God. Stay with the science issue.

For me, the right answer and the only answer is obvious. God did not create the universe in an advanced state.

Mmmm. As I said: “that may or may not turn out to be an interesting discussion.” In other words, I will wait to see what other irons are in the fire.

Anything else, denigrates the infinite power and wisdom of God.

In other words, the trickster bit is out.

Blessings,
granny

Spring is the message of hope sent by the Creator.

 

[rossum]

Sudden changes are the issue. Punctuated equilibrium the attempted answer. It is in crisis.

Here is an evolutionary biologist talking about punctuated equilibrium:But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.

• Chapter Four

the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.

• Chapter Eleven
  Those quotes were taken from “On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin. Punctuated equilibrium has been in the Theory of Evolution since the beginning.

rossum

 

[itinerant1]

Throughout the entire thread “The earth is only 6000 years old” there was not a single compelling argument in support of “creationism” or YEC. That fact in itself is revealing.

Thus, I must declare “The earth is only 6000 years old (II)” DOA.

 

[buffalo]

Here is an evolutionary biologist talking about punctuated equilibrium:But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification.

• Chapter Four

the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form.

• Chapter ElevenThose quotes were taken from “On the Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin. Punctuated equilibrium has been in the Theory of Evolution since the beginning.

rossum

Your claim is that irregular gradualism is punctuated equilibrium?

 

[edwest2]

Throughout the entire thread “The earth is only 6000 years old” there was not a single compelling argument in support of “creationism” or YEC. That fact in itself is revealing.

Thus, I must declare “The earth is only 6000 years old (II)” DOA.

So, all the creationists just disappeared in a puff of smoke after you stated your conclusion? Not likely.

God bless,
Ed

 

[grannymh]

Throughout the entire thread “The earth is only 6000 years old” there was not a single compelling argument in support of “creationism” or YEC. That fact in itself is revealing.

Thus, I must declare “The earth is only 6000 years old (II)” DOA.

How old was the earth when Adam and Eve walked in friendship with God?

 

[Philipp]

God has not Revealed that He created a young cosmos to look old, but man can deceive himself into thinking that God acted thus – that ideology is called “creationism”.

I agree with Cardinal Schonborn who said “creationism” has no place in the Catholic Church.

In light of Schonborn’s remarks about “creationism”, in which he is voicing the mind of the Church, you should consider biblical literalism to be highly provisional and subject to correction by biblical authorities.

Creationists set themselves up as the authoritative judges on biblical interpretation and scientific conclusions. The problem with that mindset needs no further comment from me.

I have every reason to maintain that “creationism”, in said form, makes God out to be a trickster, and no reason to abandon it.

Date the fossils and the rocks containing carbon and NOT rely on the magma as the final arbiter of age. Again I offer a proposition with some options:

(1) Locate foundations or persons of means who are willing to see a study comparing direct carbon dating of the fossils with dating magma adjacent, above or below the fossils.

(2) There are many scientists in the field digging for dinosaurs in the summer months. There are hundreds of museums world-wide with 1000’s of dinosaur bones sitting on skids in their storage facilites; I’ve seen them. Thus, even without funding for a major project a Catholic Answers team could sign a petition challenging field and museums to request that funds be solicited from the foundations already supporting their field work and divert some for both direct dating of dinosaur and human-like bones and nearby lava beds.

(3) If CA team is ignored then we could try and find Catholics of means, maybe even the PAS to support such a project if the museums ignore such a request. Maybe even Cardinal Schonborune might be willing to cough up a few thousand Euros with the possibility that he might confound the fundamentalist Usherites.

(4) Instead of name calling lets get to work and do some fossil hunting and lab work. Afterall we are looking for Catholic Answers: Right? There are also almost 200,000 folks on CA. maybe a little nudge by our monitors might get such a project started. What say ye all? I got to hit the sack so you West Coast folks can carry on. St Anthony of Padua help us find a solution to these endless discussions.

 

[itinerant1]

http://www.beerorkid.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/re-discovery-periodic-table-element.jpg

 

[StAnastasia]

http://www.beerorkid.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/re-discovery-periodic-table-element.jpg

Why are Kansas and the Discovery Institute pushing this newfangled Aristotelian four-element theory of matter? What was wrong with the turtles?

 

[StAnastasia]

(4) Instead of name calling lets get to work and do some fossil hunting and lab work. Afterall we are looking for Catholic Answers: Right? There are also almost 200,000 folks on CA. maybe a little nudge by our monitors might get such a project started. What say ye all? I got to hit the sack so you West Coast folks can carry on. St Anthony of Padua help us find a solution to these endless discussions.

Good ideas! Alert the pope and the PAS.